Punjab-Haryana High Court
Telu Ram And Another vs State Of Haryana on 13 July, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRA No.114-SB of 2003 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.114-SB of 2003
Date of Decision : 13.07.2012
Telu Ram and another
.......Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
.......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Raja Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
****
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants, namely, Telu Ram and Rem Dei, challenging the judgment and order dated 16/19.12.2002, passed by Sessions Judge, Jind, (hereinafter as 'the trial Court'), convicting the accused (herein appellants) for committing offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, (for short, 'the IPC') and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years.
The brief facts of the case in hand, as recorded by the learned trial Court in para 2 of the impugned judgment, are CRA No.114-SB of 2003 -2- reproduced as under:-
"2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.9.2000 Satey Singh complainant lodged report with the police to the effect that he is an agriculturist. He had four sons and one daughter. He daughter Sona Devi was married with Telu Ram accused about 20 years ago according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Three daughters, namely, Sudesh aged about 16 or 17 years, Mukesh aged about 8 years and Bhateri aged about four years were born. Ram Dei sister-in-law of Sona Devi daughter of the complainant was married in village Kharbala Kheri. For the last about 14 or 15 years she is residing in village Pokhri Kheri. It is alleged that Sona Devi daughter of the complainant was caused harassment by her husband Telu Ram, by her Jeth Hari Ram, by her sister-in-law Ram Dei and her daughter (Dohti of the complainant) Sudesh. Sona Devi used to tell all this to the complainant etc. at his house. The accused used to remark that progeny of Telu Ram could not perpetuate because she has not given birth to any male child and he also could not be married anywhere else. It is also alleged that the daughter of the complainant was not given food. Being fed up with the conduct of the accused, CRA No.114-SB of 2003 -3- she used to reside mostly at the house of the complainant.
On the assurance of Panchayat of village Pokhri Kheri, Sona Devi daughter of the complainant was taken away, but for the last about two years she was residing at the house of the complainant. About two months prior to the occurrence, the daughter of the complainant was taken away by Ram Dei and her relations. Subhash son of the complainant went to see Sona Devi 2 or 3 times and two days earlier Subhash had come after seeing her sister. It is alleged that Subhash was told by the daughter of the complainant that the accused are causing her harassment and keep her hungry. The son of the complainant had made Ram Dei etc. understood. On 22.9.2000 Dhupa son of Chhotu and Dharambir son of Phula residents of village Pokhri Kheri, at about 10 or 11 AM, came and told that Sona Devi has set herself on fire after sprinkling kerosene oil on her body. On receipt of this information, the complainant and his son Subhash and other family members came to village Pokhri Kheri and found Sona Devi lying dead as a result of the burns. It is also alleged that the complainant etc. enquired and came to know that Sona Devi daughter of the complainant has committed suicide after being fed up with the conduct of her CRA No.114-SB of 2003 -4- husband Telu Ram, her Jeth Hari Ram, her sister-in-law Ram Dei and her daughter Sudesh. On this report, the present case was registered and investigated. Inquest report was prepared. The dead-body was subject to post-
mortem examination. The accused were arrested and after completion of investigation, the challan was put up."
Charges under Section 306/34 IPC were framed against the accused-appellants to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, viz., Dilbag Singh Constable/Draftsman as PW1; Amarjit Singh as PW2; Maha Singh, Constable as PW3; Satey Singh, complainant as PW4; Shri Niwas, Head Constable as PW5; Jasbir Singh, Constable as PW6; Hans Raj Aggarwal as PW7; Bhan Singh, SI as PW8, Ram Mehar, Head Constable as PW9; Dr. V.P. Kakkar as PW10 and Prem Chand, Assistant Sub Inspector, as PW11.
In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the accused-appellants denied all the allegations of the prosecution case and pleaded false implication in the case. In defence, they examined Krishan Lal, Deputy Record Keeper as DW1; and Suresh Kumar as DW2.
The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, CRA No.114-SB of 2003 -5- discharged the co-accused, namely, Sudesh and Hari Ram, after giving them the benefit of doubt, whereas the present appellants were convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced for the term as indicated in para 1 of this judgment, vide judgment and order dated 16/19.12.2002, which is under challenge in the present criminal appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the version given by the complainant, Satey Singh, cannot be taken as evidence as the same falls in the category of 'hearsay; in the absence of examination of Subhash, who had allegedly visited her sister two or three days before the date of occurrence. The learned counsel further contends that the death in the present case has taken place after more than 20 years of marriage, when the deceased had already given birth to four daughters and a son, who expired later on. He further states that even the daughter of the deceased and appellant No.1, was falsely implicated as she did not agree to make false complaint against her father, appellant No.1. The learned counsel further contends that the deceased was in a disturbed state of mind for not having a son and had been visiting the Mandir of Baba Pokhar on every 'Chandani Davas', in the vicinity of the Village. As she was not blessed with a son, she committed suicide. A complaint was also filed through one Shamsher Singh under Section 302/498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which was dismissed for non-prosecution.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits CRA No.114-SB of 2003 -6- that there are specific allegations in the FIR that the brother of the deceased, Subhash visited the house of the deceased and conveyed to the complainant regarding the harassment meted out to her by the appellants. The learned counsel also refers to the postmortem report, Ex.PH, and states that the death has taken place in the house of the appellants and they have not explained the manner in which the death has occurred.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code read as under:-
"107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First: -Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly: -Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly: -Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation1:- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2: - Whoever, either prior to or at the CRA No.114-SB of 2003 -7- time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
108. Abettor.- A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable of law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.
Explanation 1: - The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to be that act.
Explanation 2: - To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused. Explanation 3: -- It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge.
Explanation 4-The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also as offence.
Explanation 5: - It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is CRA No.114-SB of 2003 -8- sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed."
In M.Mohan Vs. State of Tr. Dy. Supdt. of Police, 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 272, in paras 45 and 46, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"45. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
46. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
Admittedly, the marriage between appellant No.1 and the deceased took place more than 20 years prior to the date of occurrence. The couple was blessed with four children. It has also come in the statement of complainant-Satey Singh, that the deceased was blessed with a son, however, he died after some time. The CRA No.114-SB of 2003 -9- complainant-father of the deceased came forward and lodged the FIR on the basis of the version given by Subhash. However, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, Subhash has not been examined. There is no specific allegation of demand of dowry. Even the daughter of the appellant No.1 and that of the deceased, was implicated, however, she stands acquitted. Though the death has taken place in the house of the appellants, but the appellants have explained sufficiently that on account of not being blessed with a son, the deceased used to remain in a disturbed state of mind and committed suicide. There is no specific attribution on the part of appellant No.2. As the best evidence has been concealed from the Court, therefore, this Court is inclined to give benefit of doubt to the appellants.
Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16/19.12.2002, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jind, is set aside; and the appellants are acquitted of the charge framed against them. The appellants are stated to be on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 13.07.2012 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No